Re: convert-ly problem

Stephen wrote:
> As I was working, I was pleased to see how much better the new syntax

was. It was very refreshing to see developers who were willing to change
a program so much to improve it without regard for compatibility issues.
Finally, I found a project whose main objective was to be as good as it
can possibly be.

Thanks, we do our best to do that.

It is dissapointing to see that many of the changes from 2.4 to 2.6 are
to make Lilypond more user-friendly. TeX has been replaced by Pango
because it is smaller and easier to install. I was looking forward to
learning how to integrate TeX and Lilypond in my *.ly files more and more.

Additionally, the TeX fonts looked better than the Pango fonts do to me.
If I make a title bold it is too bold now. I think the new font needs a
slightly less bold bold.

You are confusing some issues, as does Laura. The benefit of Pango is
unicode support, so

* we can support any number of scripts (arabic, hebrew, chinese, etc)
* with exact metrics for the texts

* without having to explain the idiosyncrasies of all those (La)TeX
macro packages.

You can look at the archives for the struggle it took Aaron Mehl (sp?)
to typeset hebrew lyrics with LilyPond 2.4 + TeX.

Put another way, I think the devolopers should develop Lilypond for
their own needs and let the other users see for themselves how that
makes Lilypond more useful for everyone in the long run rather than try
to anticpate the needs of the fictional "general user".

My own needs are just an inexplicable urge to perform brainsurgery on my
dearest child, and write cool and nifty code. On average, I typeset two
to three non-development related pieces of music per year. Hardly a itch
that should steer coding directions.